Jaime, for example, talks about Science like it is a person. Science depends on......, Science insert verb here.

An automobile depends on fuel in order to run. Does that make it a person?

Quote

Many of you fear the idea of a God. If there is a God, there might be a hell, is your logic, however irrational. Many of you live immoral lives, and have had several abortions, and you fear a God will have his revenge.

Few things enrage me more than misplaced arrogance and outright lies. If there is a god who created a hell that will torture, for all eternity, those who don't believe in him regardless of whether they live moral lives (as I am doing), he is a FUCK and I will tell that to his face. He deserves derision, not worship. You should be ashamed of yourself for worshiping such a monster.

Quote

If you don't fear the idea of a God, then clearly you will see we were designed. The idea of God is no more "crazy" than the idea life sprung up out of the blue from non-life on its own. And had the ability to reproduce and generate DNA to provide the code for the various traits and parts of lifeforms

It is far, far more crazy. The idea that an ultimately powerful and complex being, capable of creating a universe and life, and designing it in such a way as to make it look as if it is NOT designed (as life on earth does--what kind of stupid designer put our food tube and air tube ENDING AT THE SAME HOLE so we're in danger of choking with every mouthful??), sprung out of nothing is so utterly ridiculous that it's a wonder folks who believe it can actually function in the real world.

I don't fear the idea of god. I mock it.

Logged

...religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash...anyone who doesn't show...deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

~Astreja

To not believe in god is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place.

Few things enrage me more than misplaced arrogance and outright lies. If there is a god who created a hell that will torture, for all eternity, those who don't believe in him regardless of whether they live moral lives (as I am doing), he is a FUCK and I will tell that to his face. He deserves derision, not worship. You should be ashamed of yourself for worshiping such a monster.

I don't think he does, unless he's been lying. He said earlier that he didn't believe in afterlife. That being so, his god is semantically worth a potato peeler. I wanna see why his thinks his idea of god is so good, that it's worth arguing for 20 pages. Or, maybe I will ask Kim Kardashian.

I don't think he does, unless he's been lying. He said earlier that he didn't believe in afterlife. That being so, his god is semantically worth a potato peeler. I wanna see why his thinks his idea of god is so good, that it's worth arguing for 20 pages. Or, maybe I will ask Kim Kardashian.

Thanks for pointing that out, I forgot about that. My apologies for having gotten that wrong.

But if that's true, why bother even bringing up hell? *shrug*

Logged

...religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash...anyone who doesn't show...deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

~Astreja

To not believe in god is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place.

Jaime, for example, talks about Science like it is a person. Science depends on......, Science insert verb here.

You might have a point if I had been saying things like "science thinks" and "science says". As it is, it's obvious that you're well aware that your arguments have totally fallen flat here, and now you're stooping to trying to make people look ridiculous in another attempt to win by default. Which might work better if you hadn't made yourself look even more ridiculous during these past 38 pages. It's been one fallacy after another.

Quote from: DrTesla

If you don't fear the idea of a God, then clearly you will see we were designed. The idea of God is no more "crazy" than the idea life sprung up out of the blue from non-life on its own. And had the ability to reproduce and generate DNA to provide the code for the various traits and parts of lifeforms

This is an argument by emotion fallacy. You're trying to manipulate people into agreeing with you by trying to use what you think is an effective emotional hook. However, it's easily recognizable as such and thus is totally ineffective.

If your 'design' belief were actually accurate, you would not have to rely on logic (and logical fallacies) to try to convince people. You would be able to use evidence - real world evidence - to do the convincing. And that's why you're still spinning your wheels after 38 pages.

Basically, he's trying to make an argument that can't be argued against. Consider what he's been saying all along: something that is irreducibly complex can't function with a single necessary part missing, but any part that can be removed isn't necessary. Frankly, it's a vacuous argument - he isn't telling us what parts are actually necessary in order for something to be irreducibly complex, just that you can't remove them, so he can't be 'proved' wrong by experimental testing. Or at least, so he thinks.

In actual fact, this fallacy is the one that ties all his other fallacies together. And it isn't as strong as he thinks it is - because he's arguing about science, not logic. Science is about making specific predictions and then doing tests to see if the predictions are right or wrong, which he clearly isn't doing here. Instead, he's trying to argue that his conclusions are right based on various reasons, which is logic. Logic by itself does not and can not disprove something learned through scientific testing. It does not matter how logical an argument is if it does not correspond with reality.

It's like Zeno's paradoxes, which are inherently very logical. Yet, trying to use the halfway paradox to assert that motion is impossible is clearly wrong, not to mention ridiculous. The same goes for any other logical argument that tries to assert something contrary to reality.

You guys have started to understand that I am bit of a master debater and an eloquent orator.

@Add Homonyminem

IC in lifeforms indicates design. The nature of the intelligent designer is still up in the air. It is clear he is extremely intelligent, and I am one of the few made in His image.

I'm now prepared to receive your apology for your various falsities and slander.

Being a great debater does not make you right - you know like William lane Craig.

I repeat from my earlier post. When are you going to publish your paper that gets rid of evolution from the science curriculum. You obviously have the research and everything to do it. Think of that nice Nobel prize you'll get too!

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

You guys have started to understand that I am bit of a master debater and an eloquent orator.

Or at least you think you are. Given everything, I'm inclined to think otherwise. I mean, your 'eloquence' has basically been "no, you guys are wrong, and here's my argument again". Which itself doesn't exactly show a high level of debating skill.

Quote from: DrTesla

IC in lifeforms indicates design. The nature of the intelligent designer is still up in the air. It is clear he is extremely intelligent, and I am one of the few made in His image.

Sorry, I shouldn't laugh, but that statement is just so utterly egotistical and so typical of the guy that it's impossible to take even slightly seriously.

Actually, it kind of makes sense. Only a moron would design the eating and breathing holes in the same passageway, put the sex and excrement holes so close together, install an appendix we don't need, make our spines better suited for quadrapeds, and a whole host of other things. Piss poor design, really.

Jaime, for example, talks about Science like it is a person. Science depends on......, Science insert verb here.

Many of you fear the idea of a God. If there is a God, there might be a hell, is your logic, however irrational. Many of you live immoral lives, and have had several abortions, and you fear a God will have his revenge.

If you don't fear the idea of a God, then clearly you will see we were designed. The idea of God is no more "crazy" than the idea life sprung up out of the blue from non-life on its own. And had the ability to reproduce and generate DNA to provide the code for the various traits and parts of lifeforms

Take your statement above and insert any mythical character, and it fails just the same. "The idea of..." [unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, Santa Claus]. FAIL.

Starting with your conclusion is backwards. Assuming we are 'afraid' of YOUR pure assumption regarding a 'god' (whatever that means) is dishonest. So you are a lying, deceiving, prick who has no problem misrepresenting others positions to cater to your ego. Yeah, that's going to be real effective! NOT.

Go away, grow up, do some studying in the related fields (take some classes), and come back when you're ready to actually be a rational person.

You guys have started to understand that I am bit of a master debater and an eloquent orator.

I don't know who you think you accidentally impressed, but I can assure you that it wasn't me. Having seen no evidence of either skill set, my opinion of you is considerably lower than that. Although when you said 'master debater', that was somewhat close to my opinion.

No, that's not right. It rhymes with the word that I think best describes you.

But don't let me throw off your rhythm. And I gotta hand it to you. No, that's not right. You hand it to yourself. But anyway, you go on. Let us know when you're done.

You guys have started to understand that I am bit of a master debater and an eloquent orator.

I find this statement quite offensive, assuming only makes an ass out of you, and everyone else just sits back and laughs at your stupidity.You can't assert that we fear something we don't believe exists then state that little gem and expect us to take you seriously.

You guys have started to understand that I am bit of a master debater and an eloquent orator.

I find this statement quite offensive, assuming only makes an ass out of you, and everyone else just sits back and laughs at your stupidity.You can't assert that we fear something we don't believe exists then state that little gem and expect us to take you seriously.

Awesome. You are one of these lurkers that Dr Cut & Paste asserted were out there, admiring his oratory skills. Thanks for joining up :-)

I don't think he does, unless he's been lying. He said earlier that he didn't believe in afterlife. That being so, his god is semantically worth a potato peeler. I wanna see why his thinks his idea of god is so good, that it's worth arguing for 20 pages. Or, maybe I will ask Kim Kardashian.

Thanks for pointing that out, I forgot about that. My apologies for having gotten that wrong.

But if that's true, why bother even bringing up hell? *shrug*

Page 33, he brought up heaven and hell, and said he didn't believe in them.

So, my argument is similar to that which he levels at amateur evolutionists: that we only argue about evolution to get up the nose of Christians, and that it has no further point in our lives, past that. By reflection, he argues that a god must exist, but then has no point to make after that. At least none that Kim Kardashian couldn't think of.

I find this statement quite offensive, assuming only makes an ass out of you, and everyone else just sits back and laughs at your stupidity.You can't assert that we fear something we don't believe exists then state that little gem and expect us to take you seriously.

As others have noted, DrT is a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. He's here to troll, not be taken seriously; we've seen his type before. If he shapes up enough to avoid being quarantined in the Emergency Room or banned (neither of which happen that often), he'll likely hang around poking at people for awhile, then get bored and leave.

That's the usual pattern for his type, anyway. Perhaps he'll surprise us and actually become something closer to what he thinks he is. I think that's unlikely, though: he seems to get more pleasure from provoking people than really having a discussion.

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

I find this statement quite offensive, assuming only makes an ass out of you, and everyone else just sits back and laughs at your stupidity.You can't assert that we fear something we don't believe exists then state that little gem and expect us to take you seriously.

As others have noted, DrT is a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. He's here to troll, not be taken seriously; we've seen his type before. If he shapes up enough to avoid being quarantined in the Emergency Room or banned (neither of which happen that often), he'll likely hang around poking at people for awhile, then get bored and leave.

That's the usual pattern for his type, anyway. Perhaps he'll surprise us and actually become something closer to what he thinks he is. I think that's unlikely, though: he seems to get more pleasure from provoking people than really having a discussion.

I read the whole thread, and yes I can definitely see the Dunning-Kruger effect in action. He's also an insult to Engineers, myself included. While I'm not a mechanical engineer, I write computer software, I find it a slap to the face that he uses his status as an engineer as some kind of proof, when all it is is personal incredulity.

I have not used my engineering expertise as proof, I have used IC as proof.

So you guys think the cardiovascular system was able to evolve in gradual incremental steps via random mutations. the heart wouldn't do much good without the veins and arteries, the viens and arteries wouldn't do much good without a heart, and half a heart would do much good. Not to mention you have the interface with the respiratory system via the lungs so the cardiovascular system wouldn't be much good without the lungs. lol

those are some awesome random mutations. nature is amazing. lol

« Last Edit: October 31, 2013, 10:27:53 PM by DrTesla »

Logged

"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. " NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business. We don't have be divas on this stuff." DrTesla

I have not used my engineering expertise as proof, I have used IC as proof.

So you guys think the cardiovascular system was able to evolve in gradual incremental steps via random mutations. the heart wouldn't do much good without the veins and arteries, the viens and arteries wouldn't do much good without a heart, and half a heart would do much good. Not to mention you have the interface with the respiratory system via the lungs so the cardiovascular system wouldn't be much good without the lungs. lol

those are some awesome random mutations. nature is amazing. lol

You're attempting to "prove" IC, you can't use IC as your proof, it doesn't work that way.Also guess what another name for a software programmer is?You guessed it "Software Engineer"

[wiki]Software Engineering[/wiki]

EDIT:This is yet another prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Rather than do a simple google search about software engineering you made a baseless assertion.

Computer Science is a complete field of scientific study, much like Biology, Software Engineering is a specific field WITHIN Computer Science.

engineer can be in your job title but you did not study engineering at the academy.

you can train a blind monkey how to program. lol

I don't have to prove, IC is a state of a system find in life and non-life. A simple system like a mousetrap is IC, therefore, many systems of the body are IC. Got to have all the parts to work. To deny there are IC systems in the body is to underscore the lack of reason in Darwins. If I force you to deny IC to defend Darwin, then I have won the debate.

engineer can be in your job title but you did not study engineering at the academy.

you can train a blind monkey how to program. lol

I don't have to prove, IC is a state of a system find in life and non-life. A simple system like a mousetrap is IC, therefore, many systems of the body are IC. Got to have all the parts to work. To deny there are IC systems in the body is to underscore the lack of reason in Darwins. If I force you to deny IC to defend Darwin, then I have won the debate.

Darwin was a fool, and by God, I will make you own it.

This is just more childish empty repetition b/c you have nothing else (except an argument from incredulity fallacy). IC is irrelevant. The second you say, "It could not have happened any other way than 'designer'" you've just lost all credibility. You've left science and are now doing theology (in irrationality). You cannot demonstrate your alleged designer and looking at human design in order to infer a 'grand designer' is an argument from ignorance. As I said before, you have put the cart before the horse. You have to prove a designer FIRST. You cannot assume 'designer' just because it looks like it to you. Numerous things in science are NOT intuitive and you simply cannot go about doing science by your hunch. You need actual evidence (such as demonstrating the designer so he can speak for himself). Until you have that, you have nothing but empty claims and ignorance of the science.

engineer can be in your job title but you did not study engineering at the academy.

you can train a blind monkey how to program. lol

The academy?

Are we playing Star Trek now?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."